### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10 - 12 - 00204 - CR BRIAN COOK , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. FISC - 11 - 20887 MEMORANDUM OPINION In two issues, appellant, Brian Thomas Cook, challenges the amount of court costs assessed by the trial court. We affirm. I. B ACKGROUND On August 30, 2011, appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first

- degree felony. See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.021 (West Supp. 2012 ). Appellant subsequently entered an open plea of guilty to the charged offense. The trial court accepted appellant’s plea and sentenced him to twelve years’Cook v. State Page 2

incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with no fine. In addition, the trial court ordered that appellant pay $ 599.00 in court costs. An order to withdraw funds from appellant’s inmate account was incorporated in the judgment. This appeal followed. II. A NALYSIS In his brief, appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the amount of court costs asses sed by the trial court in this case because there was no bill of costs prepared, though required by article 103.001 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 103.001 (West 2006). Though not available to counsel at the ti me appellant’s brief was filed, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recently held that a bill of costs need not be included in the record to support the assessment of mandatory or statutorily

- authorized court costs. Johnson v. State , No. PD

- 0193

- 13, _ __ S.W.3d ___, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 240, at **25

- 26 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2014); see Cardenas v. State , No. PD

- 0733

- 13, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 236, at *3 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2014). Thus, if the court costs in this case are mandatory or authorized by statute, then a bill of costs was not required to be included in the record. In the instant case, a bill of costs was not originally included in the record. However, after abating and remanding this proceeding, the trial

- c ourt clerk created a supplemental clerk’s record containing an itemized bill of costs documenting the costs incurred from August 30, 2011 to May 24, 2013. See Johnson , 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 240, at **15

- 16 (concluding that a bill of costs can be prep ared and added to theCook v. State Page 3

record via a supplemental clerk’s record); see also Jones v. State , No. 06

- 12

- 00107

- CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2832, at *16 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana Mar. 19, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). As shown in the table below, the complained

- of costs are mandated by statute: Fee Assessed Amount Statutory Authority Child Abuse Prevention Fund/Off. After 9/01/05 $100 T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 102.0186(a)(1) (West Supp. 2013). Consolidated Court Cost $133 T EX . L OC . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 133.102(a)(1) (West Supp. 2013). District Clerk Filing Fee $40 T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 102.005(a) (West 2006). Records Management & Preservation Fee $25 T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 102.005(f) (West 2006). Courthouse Securit y Fee $5 T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 102.017(a) (West Supp. 2013). Arrest Fee $5 T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 102.011(a)(1) (West Supp. 2013). Indigent Legal Services $2 T EX . L OC . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 133.107(a) (West Supp. 2013). Judicial Support Fee: Criminal $4 T EX . L OC . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 133.105(a) (West 2008). Jury Reimbursement $6 T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 102.0045(a) (West Supp. 2013). Time Payment Fee $25 T EX . L OC . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 133.103(a) (West Supp. 2013). District Technology Fee $4 T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 102.0169(a) (West Supp. 2013). DNA Fee on Sex

- Related After $250 T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC .Cook v. State Page 4

9/1/2001 A NN . art. 102.020(a)(1) (West Supp. 2013). Therefore, because the complained

- of costs contained in the bill of costs are mandated by statute, we reject appellant’s complaints about the absence of a bill of costs in the record. See Johnson , 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 240, at **25

- 26; Cardenas , 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 236, at *3; Mayer v. State , 309 S.W.3d 552, 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (stating that we review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the award of costs by viewing all record evidence in the light most favorable to the awar d); see also Thomas v. State , No. 01

- 12

- 00487

- CR, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2989, at **9

- 13 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 21, 2013, no pet.) (concluding that sufficient evidence supports the judgment awarding costs that are mandated by sta tute). We do note, however, that the bill of costs appears to reverse the jury

- reimbursement and judicial

- support fees. Article 102.0045 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states that a person convicted of an offense shall pay, as court costs, $4 fo r jury reimbursement. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 102.0045. On the other hand, section 133.105(a) of the Texas Local Government Code provides that a person convicted of an offense shall pay, as court costs, $6 for “court

- related purposes for the supp ort of the judiciary.” T EX . L OC . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 133.105(a). Though the fee assessments for these line items are incorrect, we recognize that the net result is the same. As such, any error associated with the bill of costs is harmless. Therefore, bas ed on the foregoing, we overrule both of appellant’s issues on appeal. III. C ONCLUSIONCook v. State Page 5

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AL SCOGGINS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed March 13, 2014 Do not publish [CR25]